Oh, you don't like Peter Singer? How can you not? Or do you just hold His Holiness in much higher regard?

I don't know the details, I was just told somewhere along the line, that he had been vegetarian (which is actually pretty rare among Tibetan Buddhists), but went back to omnivorism on his doctor's advice.

I'm not a Buddhist (or a practitioner of any other religion, for that matter), but I have a lot of respect for the religion/philosophy. If more Buddhists followed the First Precept (harm no living being) as it was written, instead of interpreting it to their benefit, I might be more inclined to listen to them.

Sknydpr wrote:Oh, you don't like Peter Singer? How can you not? Or do you just hold His Holiness in much higher regard?

I don't know the details, I was just told somewhere along the line, that he had been vegetarian (which is actually pretty rare among Tibetan Buddhists), but went back to omnivorism on his doctor's advice.

I'm not a Buddhist (or a practitioner of any other religion, for that matter), but I have a lot of respect for the religion/philosophy. If more Buddhists followed the First Precept (harm no living being) as it was written, instead of interpreting it to their benefit, I might be more inclined to listen to them.

First, I should clarify and say that I like anybody and anything that gets people eating less animals. Peter Singer is obviously a person who has influenced many people to rethink there relationship with animals, which is great! He has said and written many things which I agree with, and have approvingly quoted from him many times.

But, Peter Singer is not a "rights" advocate. I would say he is a radical animal welfarist, but not one who speaks of or advocates actual "rights" for animals. Again, I am not really passing judgment on this - I am merely making an observation to correct common misconceptions of Peter Singer being a "rights" advocate. You will notice that he is actually not favourably received by hardcore hard-line vegans and a.r. people.

I also TOTALLY disagree with his views on infanticide, and more recently, his shocking views on beastiality.

But, despite of his views on infanticide, even the disabled woman whom he publicly debated has said about Singer that he is a "good man, just misguided." Although I haven't met Singer in person, based on some of the great stuff he has written on animals, I agree with this woman's description of him.

So there you have my two cents worth skinnydipper.

And yes, I meant that since the Dali Lama is such a holy man, you cannot really compare the two men, especially in view of Singer's other questionable and somewhat shocking views.

But I like whoever helps animals though, and Singer is on that list obviously.

Last edited by compassionategirl on Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Then his doctor was obvioulsy a moron!!! Too bad he never found this website.

Anyway, I don't know that much about Buddhism either but it has always intrigued me. IT sounds like, from the little that I do know about it, it is the religion that is MOST supportive of a cruelty free lifestyle because of that first precept that you mentioned. I just don't get how the Dali Lama can overlook that and how other practising and truly holy buddhist figures can ignore it either. "Harm no living thing." It cannot get much simpler or unambiguous than that. What part of this don't buddhists, and indeed ALL decent people, no matter what religion, get??????

compassionategirl wrote:truly holy buddhist figures can ignore it either. "Harm no living thing." It cannot get much simpler or unambiguous than that.

Exactly, it doesn't leave much room for interpretation, does it?

Unfortunately, the Precepts are not considered to be hard-and-fast rules, rather they're strong 'suggestions'. The more reverant Buddhists feel that it's okay as long as you mentally thank the animal for its sacrifice. And also, since the Buddha Gautama allegedly died from eating spoiled pork, many don't believe that he meant the First Precept they way we wish they would take it.